h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>It's not usually speed that kills the young motorist,<<

Who gives a stuff about the young motorist if they want to live fast, die young and have a beautiful corpse? Speed does kill kids and old and disabled people crossing the street. That's the problem round here and lots of other places in the UK.

make sure they rattle lots and deny them access to high powered stereos too! I'm serious!

Young drivers may have the most 'accidents' but there's a huge slice of drivers who simply enrage and endanger other drivers. Outside/mid lane hoggers, lane switchers, undertakers, 40mph-everywhere-ers... And when you have a few people driving to different tunes, if you like, you end up with accidents. I suspect a lot of starter drivers are also involved in accidents due to their lack of experience.

When you've been driving a little while you can start to spot who's turning left even though they arent indicating, who's going to pull out on you even though you're on the roundabout, who's had plenty of time to see the lane markings but you know is going to cut into your lane... Experience and concentration/attention span not being a strong point of your average (what's averag?) young driver.

The most dangerous people on the roads? The over-confident complacent selfish types, and the under-confident, shaky, wary ditherers. I knew a woman who would wibble around all over the road, then take her hands off the steering wheel and slam the brakes on in a panic if she heard a siren (she didnt know what to do)... She couldnt negotiate roundabouts on her own, turn right off a main road unless it had a seperate filter light, wasn't sure about parking and had no idea how large the vehicle she was driving was.

Mix them with people who will happily switch lanes, undertake and run late amber lights, crowd the less 'confident' drivers and harrass anyone who quite likes the speed limit thanks and it's no surprise we have accidents all over the place.

And when it rains? Well, 80mph bumper to bumper's never a good idea, let alone in torrential rain, is it? Apparently some people dont realise this...

And a small point here, that is very important... if kids knew how to cross the road and treat roads, there'd be less likelyhood of them getting knocked down by ANYone; speeding, frail, blind, young, deaf, stupid or otherwise.

Yes and not just kids. I certainly know how to cross the road. I'm fit and able. And yet I regularly have to suddenly put a spurt on because some moron suddenly appears out of nowhere, exceeding the speed limit.

I was in a car the other day with a guy from work - he sped through a red light to save a nanosecond (mid 40s, big german car...)

so I said: if he had hit his wife, coming through the corresponding green light, and took her out and both the kids who might be in the back of her smaller car (2nd hand Punto) that nanosecond would be really worth it, wouldn't it. and he just shrugged

A lot of the NZ approaches to young drivers have been proposed in the UK but the problems of policing (perhaps if we had more police...) some of these ideas means they have not been taken up. Shortly the full driver age is to be raised to 18 with provisional licences - and thereby driving lessons - to continue from 17. It is presumably hoped that teenagers will begin learning when they reach 17 and then spend a full year having lessons. I suspect in reality they will not begin learning until they are very nearly 18 so as not to spend a fortune on lessons.

There is no question that young drivers are a serious problem for road safety. The biggest single cause of death of teenage girls in the UK is road accidents caused by their teenage boyfriends.

The problem is not one of skill so much as one of attitude, although this is not entirely restricted to teenagers. Perhaps along with the theory, hazard perception and practical tests there should be some kind of psychological profile as part of the driving test scheme.

Unfortunately if driving tests get tougher and insurance rates get higher there will inevitably be a proportionate increase in the number of unlicenced and uninsured drivers who simply can't or won't go to the trouble and expense of staying within the law.

F

What works is not always entirely clear, so you need to do research before implementing new schemes. Licensing and regulations on driving are impositions on liberty, so they have to be justified by the fact that they save lives. For example, as Fathom points out, if you make the test too hard, it will increase the number of people who drive without a license, who cause more accidents than those with a license. There's presumably an optimal level of difficulty of the test which minimises the number of accidents, and the difficulty of the test should in principle be set at that level. Working out what that level is might be very difficult though, and I don't see any better way to do it than just trial and error.

The other issue is cost vs. benefit. A lot of things that would reduce the number of deaths are extraordinarily expensive, either directly or in their knock on effects on the economy. As a country we need to make a democratic decision about just how much accidental death we're willing to tolerate for the economic benefits. Sounds nasty, but it's unavoidable really.

Having said that, a couple of ideas that seem sensible to me are:

* Harder tests, involving more practice at unusual situations, possibly using a driving simulator (surely these can be made pretty realistic nowadays?). Most drivers know that you're supposed to steer towards the direction of the skid, but probably in an actual skid most would panic and steer the wrong way. Knowing and having that practical ability are quite different. Since I started driving, I've wanted to take lessons and then the advanced driving test, because although I'm not a bad driver, I don't think I'd be able to drive fully safely in certain sorts of situations without that teaching and practice. Driving is definitely the most dangerous thing I do. But, it's rather expensive and time consuming to do the advanced driving test, so I haven't. I think the cost/benefit payoff would almost certainly favour this sort of thing. It would be expensive, but not too expensive I'd guess.

* Legal technological requirements on new cars, for example automatic speed limiters that won't let you speed on public roads (which I recently found out are legally required in HGVs and reduced accidents by 40% when they were introduced), sensors which automatically brake the car if you're too close to the car in front, etc. This might actually turn out to be too expensive for all sorts of reasons, but it would make the most difference.

What I don't want is more intrusive police and government powers like GPS tracking of all cars, etc.

Liberty? to speed around, drive unlicenced and cause mayhem? What sort of liberty is that?

anyway back to the point: I am not prepared to tolerate any "accidental" deaths by reckless driving, drunk driving, speeding etc. Full stop. And I would prefer to have hidden speed cameras. Because someone's "liberty" to drive at 100mph ends when they are the sort of people who think it's ok to do that outside a school. "Liberty" ends with those MerchantBankers who think red lights are for other people.

And for me there is a special circle of hell reserved for those eejits who think that the zipper method of filtering traffic is for wimps or something. It is the best way to keep traffic moving, morons!

Traveller in Time zipping from when one of the lanes start slowing down
"Had discussions about the zipping with my colleague last, were 'driving' in a gridlocked jam. It is pretty difficult to keep 'locked' with the other lane as the cars in front of you fade into the distance and cars behin pass you on the wrong side.


Think you should use common libraries for your drivers. Zipping them is a bad idea, it just takes some time to unzip them during load while systems have more then enough space. "

I'm sorry Dogster, but I fundamentally disagree with <>. Driving is *not* a right - it's a privilege that has to be earned.

I'm surprised no one has brought up the environmental aspect. Tougher regulations and more stringent enforcement will go some way to reducing the number of vehicles on the road. Perhaps we should get serious about enforcement rather than treating motorists as a cash cow. Let's create an atmosphere where people treat their license with respect.

Driving without a license - 10 year ban for a first offence, life ban and a mandatory jail term for a 2nd offence.

Reduce the points system to 6 points before a (lengthy) ban.

If we make it far easier to lose the privilege, people might take a little more care.

Traveller in Time on top
"Is there an alternative ?

I still have to see the public transport 'working' in most places. Only in some cities we have some kind of reliable and frequent alternative, in most local cases I overtake the 'public transport' by foot of bicycle . "

Oh, SWL, I absolutely and completely agree with you. What is required, in order to reduce both the number of vehicles on the road AND the number of bad drivers on the road, is a sea change in our culture.

Driving IS a priveledge, NOT a right, but you cant tell from talking to people. This is why people drive without licences and insurance, this is why people carry on driving even when they know they shouldnt (losing sight, have fits, are too nervous to be safe, unable to control vehicle, drunk, banned, on drugs etc).

But how to affect that change?

I think with all the hysteria being employed in this thread, it might be wise to remember that here in the UK we have close to the safest roads in the world - using road deaths per capita as the measure at the least.

http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-multicountry-percapita-2004.htm

Stopping much of what people are moaning about here (bad lane discipline, lack of attention, impatience) requires stopping stupidity selfishness and well, much of human nature. I wish you luck with that.

Interesting, if you go down that list and look at the USA, you'll see they have a vastly worse record than most developed countries. I find that surprising since they have one of the lower speed limits that I know of.

Ah, I was going to say pretty much what Orcus said, but he beat me to it. The UK's roads are for the most part a pretty safe place to be, and so I don't see any problems and I don't see any need to change anything.

As to why Americans seem to die more frequently than Brits. I would say that that is down to three things.
1) They don't use seatbelts to the extent that we do. Airbags are not a full replacement in a crash, particularly when compared to us who use both belts AND airbags.
2) Most US cars are automatics which are incredibly easy to drive in comparison to a manual. Therefore folk just switch off and stop paying attention whilst driving.
3) US cars do not handle well in an emergency situation. It's hard enough to make them go around corners at the best of times, so if you have to do some sudden manouvre you're right up queer street.

Sho, "Liberty? to speed around, drive unlicenced and cause mayhem? What sort of liberty is that?"

and SWL, "Driving is *not* a right - it's a privilege that has to be earned."

It's interesting that while I was actually proposing much stronger controls on driving - including fitting automatic speed limiters on all cars - you should both focus on this sentence. Anyway, to explain myself: I don't believe that driving is a 'right', but we should be free to do as we will unless there is a strong reason to create a law stopping us. That's what liberty means, and I believe in it (although obviously that's a little old fashioned of me nowadays). In the case of say, murdering people, there's a pretty clear reason to make it illegal. Same for driving, there's a good reason to regulate it.

Now as I said, I would have much stronger controls on driving, assuming it were feasible to do so. But, it's not just as simple as saying that if you can't drive safely you shouldn't be allowed to. If you made the test much more difficult, or had to retake it every year, a lot of poorer people would find driving too expensive an option - lessons are expensive, and so is retaking the test if you fail it. This would create more inequality, which is something I'm against. (Have you noticed the pattern? I'll be talking about fraternité next...)

So here's another alternative: A better solution would be a well funded, subsidised public transport network so that people don't need to drive. It also makes sense from the environmental perspective. The bad side? Higher taxes. Well, if that's what it takes...

Orcus, "Interesting, if you go down that list and look at the USA, you'll see they have a vastly worse record than most developed countries."

Not necessarily. The per capita death rate is pretty bad, but the number of deaths per billion kilometres driven (the last column) is actually not so bad. It's not great (9.4, compared to UK's 7.5, the lowest on the list), but it's not as bad as some of the countries whose per capita rate is lower (compare to the Slovak Republic which has a per capita rate of 11.26, much less than the USA at 14.53, but a per billion km rate of 46.9, much higher than the USA at 9.4). The point is that in the USA they drive a lot more than in most countries. So comparing the USA to the UK, their per billion kilometres rate is 25% higher than in the UK, but their per capita rate is 272% higher, which means that 91% of the higher per capita rate in the US is explained by the fact that they drive much more. (Disclaimer: my sums may be wrong!)

The thing is, whatever ideal changes we might bring in, before we do them lets at least be honest as to whether they are widely enforcible. This will inevitably mean paying for it. If we can't even properly enforce stuff like not chatting on your mobile, or the speed limit in built up areas, not to mention regular random stopping of cars to check for drink/driving or cannabis/driving, what's the point of changes.

I can assume that not enough people feel strongly about things to be prepared to pay for it.

Interesting you should spot that as if you notice on my original link the USA has a clickable link which takes you...

here
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/info%20section/statistics/stats-usa.htm

where they discuss that point and refute is somewhat since most miles in the USA are driven on the freeway which are the safest roads. Most deaths occur in rural roads and somewhat counter your argument.

Also if you hunt around the site I linked to (and it's referred to in the link in this post also) - they show that the USA has the poorest record of all amongst developed countries in *improving* it's road fatality figures over the last few years.

Incidentally, I noticed after my last post - if you look at that last column, you may note that amongst those countries included in the list - the UK has THE safest roads by that measure.

Fair point Orcus, I hadn't thought about that. But I stand by my point that the per capita rate doesn't tell the whole story, and that the per km rate is at least somewhat relevant.

Well I wouldn't disagree, you need to take account of several meaures to get a good picture